The proponents of Social Security privatization:
Are insane.- Are stupid.
- Are greedy and devious.
- Think we're stupid.
- Are right - we are stupid.
(pick one or more)
(Hint: they're not crazy and they're not stupid.)
|
What's Ahead For Social Security Business Week 11/22/04 |
You can see why I included some of the choices when you answer this question:
If Social Security is going to go negative in about 2040, why would anyone propose a "fix" that adds $2 trillion to the shortfall (which is what privatization would do) at the same time we're running record-shattering deficits?
Those choices I listed start looking pretty reasonable, don't they?
On top of that, "conservative" Susan Lee gushes, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal op-eds, about a Social Security privatization variant called Plan Two:
So there you are. No need to puzzle over reforming Social Security.
Plan Two deftly solves the system's financial crisis and gives current workers a property right to the returns on the taxes they pay toward retirement. Plus, I should mention, Plan Two suggests that the extra money gained from dropping the wage index be used to increase benefits for low-wage workers and widows of low-wage workers — a better safety net for the few who really need it. That comes pretty close to having one's cake and eating it, too.
[Everything You Need To Know About Social Security WSJ op-ed 11/23/04 subscription] (Story links open in new windows)
Now doesn't that conclusion sound just too wonderful?
That's because it is too wonderful, trusting taxpayer. Earlier in her column she quickly glosses over a couple of key facts:
Article comments